Standing Committee D

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

London Olympics Bill

Schedule 1 - The Olympic Delivery Authority

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 7, in page 27, line 15, at end insert 
'and 
(c) equality matters including disability access and inclusive design'.—[Mr. Don Foster.] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 30, line 28, at end insert
'(21A) In section 49D of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (power to impose specific duties) after subsection (1) insert— 
''(1A) A public authority for the purposes of subsection (1) includes the Olympic Delivery Authority.''.'. 
Amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 40, after 'Olympics', insert 
'including ensuring that adequate arrangements are made to ensure that premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people,'. 
Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 35, at end insert 
'and 
(c) contribute to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality'. 
Amendment No. 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 21, at end insert 
'(including the provision of transport which is accessible for disabled people)'. 
Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert— 
'(ja) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,'. 
New clause 1—Grants for accessibility improvements— 
'The Secretary of State may make grants for the purpose of assisting any person to make improvements to highways, services, accommodation, tourist facilities, and cultural and entertainment venues which would assist disabled people in attending the London Olympics.'. 
Perhaps I should say at the outset that it is certainly warm in the room so it is perfectly in order for hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets and hon. Ladies to do likewise, but I really think that it should stop there.

Richard Caborn: May I first welcome you, Mr. Amess, to the Chair. As I recollect, you were a good supporter of our bid for 2012; somebody who saw that it could be used in the wider areas of health and tackling obesity in young people. I have no doubt that we will get a favourable wind from the Chair. As I come from Sheffield, we can always do the full monty as well if required, for a little bit of entertainment. 
Amendments Nos. 8, 2 and 3 would all impose specific powers and obligations on the Olympic delivery authority to promote access for disabled people, where general duties already exist in legislation. I will deal with them amendment by amendment. 
Amendment No. 8 would ensure that the ODA is made subject to the new disability equality duties. I would like to make it clear that the ODA will be a public authority within the meaning of the relevant provisions and so will already be subject to the general disability equality duties in section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when they come into force. Section 49D, which the amendment refers to, allows Ministers to place listed public sector bodies under specific duties to publish equality schemes, involve the views of disabled people in their planning, and report on progress. 
As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reminded us, the Government last year published the criteria they would apply when deciding whether specific duties were appropriate for a body in the consultation document ''Delivering equality for disabled people''. The criteria are that the body has significant dealings with disabled service users; has a significant impact on the lives of disabled people; could be a significant employer of disabled people; and is of sufficient size to support the duties. The Government believe that the public sector disability duties are important tools in transforming our society into one that is more equal and provides greater opportunities for disabled people. 
The Government also believe that to be effective the duties should have wide application across the public sector. In that spirit, the Government will apply the published criteria to the ODA in determining which duties are appropriate once Parliament has decided, through the Bill, on the shape and functions of the authority.

Don Foster: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. I am sure that you will give all parties favourable treatment, and not just the Minister and others on the Government Benches.
I welcome, I think, what the Minister said, until the end when there was the implication that decisions about what specific duties would be placed on the ODA in respect of the disability discrimination legislation would be made after Parliament has agreed to the establishment of the ODA. Since establishment is likely, can the Minister not give us a clearer indication of what the duties will be and an absolute assurance that the shape in which the ODA is likely to emerge from the legislation will lead to those requirements being placed on it?

Richard Caborn: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How can we instruct the ODA before we have set it up? However, I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman, because it is an important subject. There is no disagreement, but it is simply a matter of how we effect the process and take into account what was said when the amendments were moved and has been said by the Opposition parties. I do not disagree. 
The ODA would satisfy all the criteria that suggest that it should develop a disability equality scheme. It will have significant dealings with disabled service users; a significant impact, as I have already said, on the lives of disabled people; it could be a significant employer of disabled people, and I hope that it will; and it will be of sufficient size to promote a scheme. I would imagine that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions are likely to regulate at some point in the next year to place the ODA, along with any other relevant new bodies, under the specific duties of the Disability Discrimination Act. I cannot give a definite time for that at this stage, but nor can I foresee any reason why that should not happen. I entirely accept the general points that have been made and we will pursue them. 
The bodies subject to specific duties are listed in regulations. As yet, however, we do not have an ODA, although I hope that we shall have one when the Bill has been through all its stages in both Houses. I hope that the ODA can then be one of those listed organisations. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that we take his comments and the sentiments behind the amendments seriously. 
Amendment No.2 would require the ODA, when fulfilling its functions under clause 4, to ensure that premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people. Such an amendment is not necessary. From 4 December 2006, the general duties in section 49 of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 will require every public authority, in carrying out its functions, to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and others, the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than others, and the need to encourage participation by disabled people in public life. 
The ODA will therefore automatically be required to take the needs of disabled people into account. In developing the Olympic park, in particular, it will be tied to the terms of the planning permissions already granted. Those insist on the production of an access-for-all framework approved by the local planning authority.

Don Foster: The Minister has given us an assurance that there will be a requirement for a plan. Perhaps I could tease out from him an assurance that the plan will include issues such as making available facilities for guide dogs for the blind and for car drivers with blue badges, as well as making certain that we have an adequate amount of what the bid document describes as ''accessible seating'', although it does not properly or clearly define what that is. More specifically, he will be aware that, in relation to the Paralympic games, the bid document refers to making a minimum of 1 per cent. of the seating accessible. Is he convinced that 1 per cent. is anywhere near adequate?

Richard Caborn: On the debate about whether 1 per cent. is adequate, the hon. Gentleman will know that the matter was decided after extensive consultation with representatives of disabled people. That, as I understand it, is the position. 
On the hon. Gentleman's more important point about the access-for-all framework, let me lay out the principles involved, because they cover his point. The principle of inclusive design will inform and be fully integrated into the proposals. Best practice standards—not minimum standards—will be used in the design. A framework will be created to ensure that designers and users work together to deliver the best reasonable practical solutions in terms of achieving inclusive access. The establishment of an access forum after London was awarded the 2012 games will provide for engagement with all stakeholders, particularly disability, minority and disadvantaged groups, at appropriate stages in the Olympic development legacy development. A list of appropriate access groups is to include the London Access Forum and representatives from the established access groups in the boroughs. Individual venue access plans are to be provided before commencement of construction or conversion of each venue. We will also see the provision of more residential developments, which will be designed to further access for all and to meet lifetime home standards, including a 10 per cent. wheelchair access provision as a legacy development. The development will be undertaken in accordance with the advice of the Disability Rights Commission on access, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee principles on inclusive design and the best practice planning and access guide produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The establishment of appropriate mechanisms for the implementation of the framework is to be monitored and reviewed at annual intervals—unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority—to achieve the framework's objectives. That is pretty comprehensive at this stage. We are serious about making sure that disabled people will not be disadvantaged in the developments that are taking place under the ODA's auspices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that. 
Amendment No. 3 would require the ODA to have regard to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality in carrying out all its functions. As an employer, the ODA is already covered by race relations and disability discrimination legislation that ensures that it offers equal opportunities to all. The Bill sets out specific responsibilities for the ODA, in its role as the manager of a huge construction project, to contribute to sustainable development and to keep a constant eye on legacy, which means social as well as economic and environmental legacies. The amendment would not add much to those requirements. 
The Government support the concepts of social inclusion and equality. Part of our role in the Olympics is to ensure that our ambitions in those areas are fulfilled, and that east London is regenerated in the right way. Those concepts are too general to require the ODA to adhere to them in all its day-to-day tasks, most of which will be technocratic in nature. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments Nos. 8, 2 and 3. 
Amendment No. 7 and new clause 1 would provide the Secretary of State with additional powers and  obligations relating to disability and equality. Amendment No. 7 would add experience of 
''equality matters including disability access''
to the criteria that the Secretary of State should consider in making ODA board appointments. It might make sense to have some such expertise at board level, but we do not wish to specify that in the Bill. It is important that the Secretary of State should have maximum freedom to pick the best people for the job at different stages in the life of the ODA. In doing so, she will want to consider a wide range of criteria. 
New clause 1 would provide the Secretary of State with a specific power to make grants to a range of bodies to assist them in making Olympic facilities accessible to disabled people. She does not need that power. All the relevant public authorities must take account of their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. It is not for the Bill to specify how they are funded to do so. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 7, and not to press new clause 1. 
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are about ensuring that the Olympic transport plan takes account of the needs of disabled people. I shall first address amendment No. 4. In developing the transport proposals that formed the basis of London's bid to the International Olympic Committee to host the games, London 2012 and the Olympic transport team, which is based within Transport for London, were determined to ensure that the provision of transport that is accessible to disabled people was fully integrated into the transport requirements for both the Olympic games and the Paralympic games. That approach was one of the bid's strengths, and was recognised as such by the IOC. 
We expect the transport plan that was submitted to the IOC to form the backbone of the ODA's transport plans for the games. As disabled people's needs are already integrated into the plan, I expect the ODA to continue that approach and to ensure that they continue to be included in its plans. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to the ODA, but I do not expect that power to be used to ensure that it considers the accessibility of transport to disabled people in the Olympic transport plan. Although I fully accept the need to make sure that there is suitable transport for disabled people for the Olympic and Paralympic games, those needs have been taken into account and that will continue. There is no need to include those considerations in the Bill, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, although he will not accept the amendment, he expects the ODA to consider those issues. I have two questions on that, which he can get back to me on if he cannot answer them now. First, although Transport for London is not required to make audible information available on its buses, it has agreed that it will do so in time for the Olympics, at the very latest. That is clearly important for people who suffer from  visual impairment of one degree or another. Although a commitment has been made to provide that information in London, where the largest number of people involved are likely to be, is the provision of such information in public service vehicles in other areas with Olympic venues likely to be one of the issues that the ODA will take into account?
Secondly, as I said earlier, very few London Underground train stations are step-free at the moment. There is a clear commitment for the number of step-free stations to be increased. Indeed, there is a commitment to make 50 per cent. of stations step-free by 2015. Does not he believe it appropriate for the Government and relevant bodies to work with TFL and others to see if we can bring that target forward from 2015 to 2012?

Richard Caborn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We are seven years away from the Olympics, and we hope that new developments and technologies will ensure that the quality of life of many people, including the disabled, will be considerably improved in those seven years. If the pace of change in the next seven years equals that of the past seven years, we will look to be able to achieve that objective. With a Bill of this nature, we must keep that open.
On the question of integration and development for people with disabilities, the inclusive fitness initiative, which is run by Sport England and has had millions of pounds of investment, was acknowledged by my 25 ministerial colleagues and Ministers throughout the EU a few weeks ago in Liverpool when we showed them what we were doing and how disabled and older people can now go to fitness suites and enjoy those facilities alongside able-bodied persons. Our practical application of that commitment is probably second to none. Again, that was a major part of our presentation to the International Olympic Committee. 
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Bath says about transport and platforms, and about the need for audible information on buses. We will take on anything that we can in those areas, although that is probably for TFL, not for the Government, to decide. I have tried to show that we are favourably disposed to those things, and that hopefully new ideas and advances in technology will enable us to improve the quality of life of many people, including the disabled, by 2012. 
Finally, I turn to amendment No. 5. The ODA will be able to plan and to deliver all the necessary transport requirements for the Olympic and Paralympic games only by working closely with the various interested parties. In preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan, therefore, it will be essential for the ODA to consult all those who are likely to be involved in, or affected by the implementation of the plan. 
Although clause 8(3) sets out the key organisations and people whom the ODA will need to consult in preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan in order to ensure its deliverability, there are undoubtedly others whose input will be crucial. Obviously, it is not possible to list in the Bill every organisation or body whom the ODA should consult.  Clause 8(3)(k) therefore makes provision for the ODA to consult other persons, as it thinks appropriate. 
In view of the important contributions that the organisations referred to in the amendments can make when planning for and delivering Olympic and Paralympic transport, I evidently fully expect the ODA to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as it prepares or revises relevant parts of the Olympic transport plan. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to that effect, although, as I said, I expect the ODA to consult all those bodies as a matter of course. I therefore do not believe it necessary to add those bodies to the Bill. 
I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: May I seriously thank the Minister for the spirit in which in which he responded to the amendments? He made it clear that the Government are determined that everything possible will be done at the Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012 to meet the needs of disabled athletes and visitors to the games. That is to be welcomed.
I welcome the Minister's assurances in respect of many of the specific issues raised by the amendments. In relation to amendment No. 8, I am pleased to hear that the ODA will be required to develop a scheme under the Bill. I was extremely encouraged to hear that he anticipates that, within a year, the Department for Work and Pensions will have made sure that the ODA is on the requisite list. 
In respect of amendment No. 2, although the Minister was not prepared to include such a provision in the Bill, it was extremely encouraging to hear that he expects an access for all framework to be developed in consultation with a wide range of bodies. I was delighted to hear him say not only that it will be developed but that it will be regularly monitored; I am particularly pleased about that. 
I am grateful to the Minister for his responses to some of the other amendments. Although we may want many such things to happen and although we may be committed to them, we need to see results. Many organisations will be holding the ODA and the other relevant bodies to account in light of the assurances that the Minister has given today. 
I shall not quibble, but I was slightly disappointed in the Minister's response to amendment No. 5, on the requirement of the ODA to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The Minister and I will do battle in later amendments on the question of the bodies that should or should not be on the list of bodies to be consulted, but I remind him that it is normal practice for the Government to resist making such lists. It is normally Opposition parties who demand a list of such bodies, and the Government usually say that we do not need one because the Bill will take account of ''all relevant bodies''. 
On this occasion, rather bizarrely, the Government have chosen to have a list, but those who feel that it is incomplete will, not surprisingly, draw attention to  bodies missing from it. In a sense, the Minister will have brought that upon himself. However, it is particularly odd that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is not included in the list when, in other comparable legislation in respect of transport within London, the Government have chosen to make it a specific requirement for the Mayor of London to consult that body. However, I am probably being unnecessarily critical of the Minister, for which I apologise. 
I can understand the Minister's reluctance to accept new clause 1. Knowing how tight the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is with funding, not in a million years will he commit the Government to making additional funds available to meet the transport needs of disabled people. That is to be regretted, but I am not the slightest bit surprised given the current state of the country's finances. However, I hope that it will be possible for some of the issues that I have raised to be addressed in due course. 
I end as I began, by saying that I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for the clear commitments that he has given, and I have no doubt that many of the specific interest groups will now be holding him to them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in schedule 1, page 31, line 5, at end insert
'(4) The Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of each such report.'. 
The Committee will be delighted to know that my string of amendments is gradually coming to an end, and that there will not be any more for a little while, so it will not have to put up with me for much longer. 
Amendment No. 15 is important. There is a slight difficulty because the situation that I wish to discuss is about to be altered by the Minister, if he is successful with the next string of amendments. That would affect the situation a little, but not enough to satisfy me. 
The Committee will be well aware that major bodies that spend taxpayers' money in one form or another have to produce annual accounts, which are made available to Parliament. Also, arrangements are made for Parliament to debate them in some form or other and express its view of those accounts. 
To save the Committee's time, I cite just one example. The BBC produces an annual report, which talks about the nearly £3 billion it has spent, the work it has done—it employs more than 20,000 staff—and its plans to develop services for listeners and viewers and the increasing number of people who access services via other means. That report is submitted to the appropriate Select Committee for deliberation. The Olympic delivery authority will have a budget somewhere in the region of that of the BBC—it will have £2.4 billion to spend—and will, like the BBC, employ thousands of people. It will have a huge impact on not only our capital city but the whole United Kingdom. Given that that is so, I hope that we will see not only the mechanisms that are to be amended by the Minister in a second, by which copies of the report will be made available to Parliament—

Derek Wyatt: On the example of the BBC, it was the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee who asked the chairman of the governors if they would come before the Select Committee. Presumably that principle could hold in this instance, too.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why I have been very careful with the wording of the amendment, as he will have noticed. The amendment says:
''The Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of each such report.''
One way of achieving that scrutiny would be for the Secretary of State to encourage the Chairman of the Select Committee to have the issue brought before it. If the Secretary of State then discovered that the Chairman was not so minded, perhaps because of a very busy timetable, the Secretary of State could seek alternative means of ensuring that scrutiny— 
Derek Wyatt rose

Don Foster: And suggestions on that subject are about to flow from the hon. Gentleman.

Derek Wyatt: The problem is that about seven Select Committees could ask the Olympic groups for reference and that would be unfair on the groups that would have to come in week after week. However, I have some empathy with the hon. Gentleman's idea of a single body. We have a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs; perhaps it would be possible to have a Standing Olympic Committee. Otherwise, the situation is just unreasonable, both for MPs and others. The hon. Gentleman has a point.

Don Foster: I am delighted to have the growing support of the hon. Gentleman. I put it clearly on record that I have sympathy with his proposal, which he has, I think, made before in a Westminster Hall debate, to establish a Committee that oversees the relevant issues on behalf of Parliament up until, and possibly even beyond, the 2012 games. He rightly points out there are a number of ways in which that could be done. Equally, there are difficulties, in that if one just mentioned ''the appropriate Select Committee'' up to seven might well say that it was them, and they would all have a go. I chose the words in my amendment carefully, so as to give the Secretary of State the freedom to come forward with the most sensible way of doing what is suggested in light of the difficulties enumerated so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman.
Given that my amendment makes a simple request to the Secretary of State, asking him to take us just one step further than making the report available in Parliament, I look forward to the Minister acceding to it.

Hugh Robertson: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess.
My party has enormous sympathy with the spirit of this amendment, and I would be surprised if any Committee member did not have some sympathy with it. When I was talking earlier about the things that matter to my party about the Olympics, I said that we  were keen to ensure that all the work was done not only to time but to budget, and that there were no cost overruns—if, indeed, that is possible. One of the best ways of ensuring that that happens is to ensure that the Olympic process itself is subject to regular parliamentary scrutiny. 
I hope that no one disagrees with that, and I will be happy to say no more on this subject if the Minister gives an assurance that the Olympics will be debated in Parliament each and every year. Given the importance of the project, I would like that to happen on the Floor of the House, but I realise that it is impossible to give those sorts of guarantees at this stage. 
It is important that the House retain some role in scrutinising the Olympics. There is a huge budget; a lot of public money is involved. The Olympics will probably be the most important national event that this country stages for many decades to come, and it will be wholly inappropriate if this House and Parliament in general do not have a regular role in scrutinising the Olympics process. 
I hope that the Minister can give an assurance this afternoon that Government time will be made available—preferably after reports and accounts have been laid each year—for the House to debate this subject, preferably on the Floor of the House.

Richard Caborn: As has been said, the Bill requires that the ODA's annual reports be laid before Parliament. The ODA's accounts will be up for scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. That is no different from any other report that goes before the House. Rightly, there are many ways in which the Opposition can hold the Government to account. Therefore, we do not see that there is any need to go any further. The factual report will be placed in both Houses of Parliament and they will do with it what they want.
The NAO and PAC will receive the report, and a PAC report on that will be produced, which can be debated on the Floor of the House. Also, many Select Committees are considering the Olympics over the coming period, including a Scottish Select Committee. That is fine; that is part of parliamentary scrutiny. That is happening now, and in addition to that we are putting information on the Olympics into the public domain. 
There are many opportunities for the Olympics to receive further scrutiny if Opposition parties or individual Members wish for that to happen—for instance, in Adjournment debates. I believe that there is already to be an Adjournment debate on the Olympics, which I will have to respond to.

Jacqui Lait: No you won't; it has been cut.

Richard Caborn: That is excellent news for me, and I hope for even more good news from my officials when I now give way.

Jacqui Lait: On parliamentary scrutiny, I think we all recognise that it can be difficult to find time on the Floor of the House, and given how many Select Committees might take an interest in the Olympics there might be some point in considering establishing a  Standing Olympic Committee. I wonder whether the Minister might put that to the Modernisation Committee or to the appropriate House authorities, and whether the Government might back the suggestion.

Richard Caborn: We will always have a view on any suggestion that comes up, but I am not sure what our view would be on one that involves increasing the work load.
This part of the Bill deals with a specific part of the structure of the Olympics. There is no doubt that the ODA is very important. However, this part of the Bill does not deal with the London Organising Committee and other issues surrounding the bid. We are dealing here specifically with the ODA. The ODA's annual report will be deposited in both Houses of Parliament. 
If the Opposition want to discuss how they can bring the whole Olympics under further scrutiny, I do not think that making these changes to the Bill is the way to do that. That issue is much wider than the matter we are debating now in this important part of the Bill. I believe that the Olympics is wider than that. Perhaps the hon. Lady can outline certain issues on which scrutiny can take place. However, the House has all the facilities to scrutinise the Executive, such as through Select Committees, parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates and other means. If suggestions are put forward to make the good running of the Government somewhat better, we shall consider them.

Don Foster: I am sure that all members of the Committee are disappointed by the Minister's response. He picked up on the point made obliquely by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) that Parliament would not wish to discuss regularly the activities only of the ODA. Many other aspects are involved, as the wonderful diagram that was presented to us earlier this morning as a visual aid demonstrated. I am not surprised that the Minister was not prepared to say that the Secretary of State will go down this particular road.
The Minister has been a Member of Parliament for some years and knows how difficult it is to secure time on the Floor of the House, in particular, as well as to secure Adjournment debates to discuss certain issues. It would have been encouraging if the right hon. Gentleman recognised that some issues that have cross-party support are so important that, on occasions, the Government should at least show some enthusiasm to work with others to guarantee time for such debates because all hon. Members want that to happen. If time cannot be found by any other way, I should be happy if the Minister said that he and his departmental colleagues will work with the relevant authorities to find time to discuss the issue regularly, perhaps annually. That is all we want. I suspect that that is supported by Members on both sides of the Committee.

Richard Caborn: I wish to make a proposition. Will the hon. Gentleman give up one of the Opposition-day Adjournment debates? I am just quoting a few ideas. I shall probably get shot for it, but how about a third, a third, a third? The first year is the Liberal Democrats,  the second year is the Conservatives and we will consider ours as a Government for the third year.

Don Foster: Given what the Minister has said, I shall not say what I was about to say about the allocation of a fair number of Opposition days to the Liberal Democrats. I have achieved something that I did not believe that I would achieve. He has at least agreed that the Government will find time every third year.

Richard Caborn: I did not say that.

Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman said that at least he would look at the possibility. All I asked him was to look at ways in which the matter could be discussed every year. I got a third of my cake. I am satisfied with that at this stage and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Caborn rose

Don Foster: Too late.

David Amess: I am sure that the Minister will be able to reply later in another way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in schedule 1, page 32, line 25, leave out 'lay' and insert 'send'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 40.

Richard Caborn: The amendments are technical and are designed to make sure that the ODA accounts are scrutinised and laid before Parliament in the manner preferred by the National Audit Office. It is now standard practice for the accounts to be laid by the Secretary of State, not the Comptroller and Auditor General and, thus, that is the approach that we propose to take.

Jacqui Lait: I intend to ask the Minister a question rather than make a speech. One of the strands moving through the Bill is that the Greater London Assembly has been overlooked in respect of consultation and discussion. Reference has been to local authorities and I might make the same argument while speaking to subsequent amendments. If the report and accounts are to be laid before the PAC at Parliament, can I receive an assurance that the Greater London Assembly will have the same right to scrutinise them?

Richard Caborn: I hear what the hon. Lady says. Her argument is logical. I am not clear about the technical ways of putting those accounts in front of the London Assembly, but I would have thought that there were ways for Assembly members and members of the public to access them. I will look into the matter and return to it.
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 40, in schedule 1, page 32, line 25, after 'report', insert 
'to the Secretary of State, who shall lay them'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 - General functions

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 4, page 2, line 43, at end insert
'or 
(d) ensuring the safety of individuals participating in or attending London Olympic events and the security of property.'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, at end insert
'(ba) to the desirability of minimising security threats to the London Olympics,'. 
Government new clause 2.

Hugh Robertson: Funnily enough, the two amendments and the Government new clause head in the same direction. I said at the outset that although we supported the spirit of many of the Liberal Democrat amendments, we were not keen to do anything that would add to Londoners' council tax burden.
There is, of course, one exception to that. It is often said in politics, and it is true, that the most important task of a Government is to ensure the security of the people whom they govern. I am afraid that there is no doubt, given the climate in which we live, that London 2012 will be a very enticing target for some of the lunatics who exist in our own communities and elsewhere across the world. The Olympics, sadly, have some form in that regard; previous Olympic games have been touched by terrorism. 
Our own bid, as those of us who were in Singapore will remember for the rest of our lives, was touched by precisely such an act. What has changed is the type of terrorist that we face, as was somewhat in evidence in Athens. I suspect that the Chinese will deal with that in their own way. When we get round to London 2012, it will have changed dramatically. 
Having spent a lot of my earlier career 10 years ago chasing terrorists of one form or another around the world, I can say that the real achievement of al-Qaeda and its type is that it has made the IRA look positively passé. The IRA look like very old terrorists, to use that awful phrase. That gives us some idea of the threat. We simply have to face the fact that we are threatened by a group of people who would not think twice about blowing up a stadium full of people. London 2012 will be an extraordinarily enticing target. 
We have tabled the amendment to ensure that security concerns are as far up as possible in the Bill and will be apparent at each and every stage of the planning. Having said that, I do not think that there will be a single person in this Committee or involved in running the games who would not agree with that assessment—it is one of those things that goes across parties. 
We tabled the amendment to have the discussion. I realise that it would be inappropriate to discuss many operational matters in Committee. I shall not push the amendment to a Division. I merely ask the Minister to give us the necessary assurances that security is the most important thing, that it will be considered at each  and every stage and that it will be built into all the planning for London 2012. I am sure that he will; I have no doubt about it.

Don Foster: I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. On Second Reading, on 21 July, I made the point that I was absolutely convinced that the security plans that were understood to be in place were robust. The IOC concluded that they were robust and I have absolute confidence that that is the case. Nevertheless, I argued that not only must they be robust, they must be seen to be so. Therefore, it was surprising that there was no specific detailed reference to security in the Bill, which is why I tabled the amendment similar to, but different from, the one tabled by the hon. Gentleman.
As has been said, security is critical. One of the issues that has been bandied around in the press recently is the concerns about the alleged amount of money that is being made available by the various bodies in respect of security. I would merely say to anyone who has an interest in that debate that comparing the London and the Athens games is unfair. 
It is worth reflecting that our security forces and police played a major role in assisting what happened in Athens, and we should be grateful to them for what they did. A great deal of the expense incurred in Athens went on introducing some of the communications systems and so on that were not already in place. Such systems are already in place in London and across the United Kingdom. Those sorts of comparisons do nothing but undermine the confidence that we can have in the robust security systems that I know will be in place for the 2012 games. 
The Minister clearly will not accept our amendment or the one tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. However, I am delighted that he has tabled a more detailed, more comprehensive new clause of his own. I assure him that I would be more than happy to support it.

Derek Wyatt: I have two worries. First, I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent: any type of security embedded in any system now would be out of date within 18 months. Therefore, since 7 July, the complexity of security concerns me most. SecondlyI take no pride in saying thiswe have not got a brilliant IT record in Government in delivering large computer-based, wireless or software systems. I do not want to dwell on that too long. Those two matters make me apprehensive. Security is key and I have some empathy with the debate thus far.

Richard Caborn: First, I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent and for Bath, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), although I am less sure about the IT point. We do not do too badly and we run ourselves down a little too much at times. 
We all want to ensure that we do everything in our power to deliver a safe, secure games in 2012. The ODA has a role to play in that. That was brought out in the debate on Second Reading and is why we revisited the matter in new clause 2, which I will come to in a moment. We tried to take all the concerns on board. 
There is a background to this issue. We played a significant role in advising and working with the Australians on the security of the Sydney games. As a result of our expertise in that area, we moved on to be a major part of the security committee in Athens. That was acknowledged by many after those games, as was the role that our security forces and police played in a secure Athens games. 
I cannot agree to amendment No. 54 and I ask for it to be withdrawn. The ultimate responsibility for Olympic security will lie with the Cabinet-level security committee, which will be chaired by the Home Secretary and not by the ODA. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for one of the ODA's general functions to be ensuring safety and security. Instead, we need to examine the contribution that it can make in delivering a safe, secure games in 2012. It should be required to have regard to these issues when exercising its functions. 
I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will not press amendment No. 13 to a Division during our proceedings. As he will have seen, I have tabled a new clause that goes much wider in requiring the ODA to have regard for safety and security. I want to put that on the record. To ensure that it plays its part in ensuring that we deliver a safe, secure games in 2012 we propose to require it, in consultation with the police, to have regard to safety and security when exercising its functions. For example, when considering design of facilities, or, indeed, arranging for the construction work, the ODA should have regard to the importance of ensuring the safety of spectators and participants and the security of the property. The amendment would also require the ODA to have regard to safety and security when exercising its planning functions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members not to press their amendments and to support new clause 2.

Hugh Robertson: As the Minister said, the matter was raised on Second Reading, and I am delighted that he has tabled a new clause in view of that. We have had a good discussion and it would be inappropriate to take the matter further. The Minister will have advice from the relevant security authorities that is rightly not available to the Committee. I thank him for tabling the new clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 3, line 29, at end insert
'(2A) The Authority may not take any action under subsection (2) (m) or (2)(n) unless the Secretary of State has authorised that action by order made by statutory instrument. 
(2B) An order under subsection (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Richard Caborn: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Is this the point at which the question on new clause 2 should be put?

David Amess: I am advised that we shall make a decision on new clause 2 towards the end of our deliberations, when there will be an opportunity for a debate and a vote.

Jacqui Lait: I assure the Minister that when we reach new clause 2 he will have our support.
With amendment No. 57 we are moving, in our consideration, into the guts of the functions of the ODA. I want to explore some of the implications of subsection (2). The reason our amendment would require a statutory instrument before the ODA could act under the paragraphs in question is that the powers are very wide. We are concerned about paragraphs (m) and (n), which concern the formation, or the acquiring of interests in, bodies corporate. 
To my mind, bodies corporate means companies in the private sector. We are most interested in whether, if the ODA were to set up private sector companies, those would be limited by guarantee or whether they would be plcs; would they be quoted on the alternative investment market or the FTSE? What sort of companies are envisaged? If the Minister will tell me what he means—or what the Bill means—by bodies corporate, I shall be grateful. 
Other paragraphs of subsection (2) specify entering into 
''transactions relating to land, premises or facilities'',
and making arrangements for 
''carrying out works in connection with the provision of highways''
and 
''carrying out works in connection with the provision of water, electricity, gas, sewerage or other services''.
If the ODA is to be able to acquire an interest in a body corporate, will it be able to acquire an interest, therefore, in the private sector companies providing water, electricity, gas, sewerage or other services? If so, will that be done at the going market rate? Will it be done through acquisitions in the FTSE or by talking down the value of companies, as happened with Railtrack? How will it happen? 
If we read across to Government amendment No. 33 on clause 34, enabling the regional development agencies or the ODA to make transfers to the Secretary of State, or make other provisions, that could mean that the Mayor of London or a Government Department could retain the control after the Olympics. Perhaps I am being too conspiracy-minded, but we need to explore the conjunction of those provisions and its implications. We could find that the ODA, and hence the Mayor—the Minister will be aware of the Conservative party's view of the Mayor's ambitions—would have under their control a series of private companies that would in essence be nationalised. 
Given our fears in that direction, we wish to insert the caveat that action along those lines should be dealt with by statutory instrument. Parliament would then be able to voice a view on whether the ODA should be  able to interfere in the market in a way that could be harmful and that could extend the reach of the state. If the Minister can give us sufficient reassurances, I will happily withdraw the amendment. We will consider closely what he says, with a view to returning to the subject on Report.

Richard Caborn: By any stretch of the imagination, that interpretation of the provision has been drawn to its maximum. Clause 4 sets out the general functions of the ODA, which are given in more detail in the explanatory notes. Those functions are to be anything that is
''for the purpose of . . . preparing for the London Olympics . . . making arrangements in preparation for or in connection with''
and so on; and 
''ensuring that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the London Olympics.''
That gives clear parameters within which the ODA should work. Then there is the safety valve; the ODA is effectively a fully-owned subsidiary of the Olympic board. Going for wholesale nationalisation by the means alluded to by the hon. Lady would clearly not be permissible. There are enough safety valves. 
The explanatory memorandum on clause 4 explains the provision, and the ODA would have to act within that remit. If it was deemed to be acting outside those provisions, a programme committee would report back to the Olympic board, as outlined in the explanatory notes. There are enough safeguards to ensure that the games will not be a vehicle for the wholesale nationalisation of the electricity industry, or anything else. Such things stretch the imagination. Anything that the ODA does must relate to its general functions—that is the intention of clause 4—so the amendment is not necessary. If there is a clear problem with something being done by the ODA, the Secretary of State can issue a direction to stop it. The safeguards are in place if the ODA was deemed to be working outside the powers laid down in the Bill. 
I come now to my brief. I understand and accept the point behind the amendment. We want the ODA to be able to form companies and acquire interests in companies, since much of its work will be conducted in partnership with the private sector. However, we also want to make sure there is some control over the companies with which the ODA becomes involved. I therefore assure the hon. Lady that we will include a control mechanism in the ODA's management statement and financial memorandum. That will ensure that any steps taken to form a company or to take an interest in one will be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. As I have said, she already has the power to intervene. The procedure that would be introduced by the amendment is therefore unnecessary; to insist that an order be approved by affirmative resolution would be excessively time-consuming. 
We believe that streamlining the decision making with powers to intervene if there is any deviation from the central objective of delivering the games, and the  management structure, with safeguards in place, will give us the best model for delivering on time and on price. 
I repeat the point that I made earlier that all this is after wide consultation with those who have delivered the games in the past. We have learnt from some of their mistakes, and have refined some of their procedures. That has been at the back of our minds when trying to ensure that the system operates with the full powers and dynamics of the private sector, which we have been able to use. 
Having to pass a statutory instrument in this place every time we wanted to fix a section would slow the whole procedure down and would totally work against what we are trying to achieve, which is a smooth operation to deliver the games. I hope, therefore, that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the safeguards are there if the worst excesses that she described come about.

Jacqui Lait: I am interested in what the Minister says. I accept that the explanatory memorandum explains the objectives. I also accept that using the statutory instrument procedure is a delay. However, what is in the Bill is what is in the Bill. As I said, I want to go away and examine the Minister's reassurances to ensure that my worst fears are not realised.
I must just say, however, that I understand partnership working to be not taking a share in a company, so I still have my concerns about the organisation, whichever it will be, taking shares in a company, which the provision appears to allow. It also allows private sector companies to be set up. 
Will the Minister explain what sort of body corporate the advice refers to? Is it a company limited by guarantee? Is it a private company? What bodies corporate are envisaged in the provision? I will withdraw my amendment if he can give me some idea, with the proviso that we may return to it on Report.

Richard Caborn: First, we are trying through the Bill to give the ODA flexibility. As I said, this is to be a dynamic body that will deliver one of the biggest construction projects in Europe, if not the world. We will bring in the best people in the world to run this company effectively so that we can drive this project forward. Broadly speaking, these individuals will be from the private sector and will have had experience, as hon. Members will have seen from the criteria that we have laid down for the

Don Foster: Job.

Richard Caborn: For the job. I was just trying to read the paper that has just been handed to me.
We want to ensure that we give these people the necessary tools to get on with compulsory planning orders, with transport and so on. If I said to them every time, ''Okay guys, we need a statutory instrument. Just hang on a bit, I've just got to go down to the House, speak to the Whips and see whether we can get it dealt with in the next couple of weeks. Then I'll come back and tell you guys and you'd better get on with the work,'' that would be crazy. It would defeat the object of the exercise. 
I agree, however, that we must ensure that the House has controls, and it does—through the Secretary of State, who is accountable to the House under its various scrutiny procedures. The Mayor of London is accountable to the Greater London Authority, and I suppose that the British Olympic Association is accountable to its constituent parts. 
Given that and other assurances that I have given, as well as my explanation of clause 4, I hope that hon. Members are reassured that the clause has been drafted to enable us to give the ODA flexibility within the constraints that have been laid down. There is a question of balance and how we use the dynamics of the private sector to deliver this type of project effectively. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath has started to pass notes like a civil servant now. 
If we look at the dynamics of terminal 5, which is the biggest project in Europe, if not the world, we see that it is on time and on price. We can be proud of that and of the British companies involved. We are trying to get the same dynamics; we do not want these constraints. As I said to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), if we find some merit in the amendments, I will be the first to come back and say that we will add constraints via the Secretary of State. The Bill gives the facilities to a company, the ODA, to get on and develop this fantastic project over the next seven years.

Jacqui Lait: I thank the Minister for saying that he would go away and consider the matter, because paragraphs (m) and (n) are wide-ranging. I happily admit that a statutory instrument procedure is not necessarily the best; we wanted to open up the debate and the amendment was the best way to do it. If the Minister will consider the issue and give us some assurances, he may even get away with us not exploring the issue again on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in clause 4, page 3, line 29, at end insert
'(2C) The Secretary of State shall not give consent under subsection (2)(k) to any financial assistance which might result in local authorities or council tax payers in London bearing the burden of cost overruns.'. 
This is probably the amendment of most interest to most Londoners. I hope to explore the potential of our council tax payers in London having to foot a bill; we hope that that will not happen after 2012, but many of us are concerned that it will. 
We know and appreciate, and I am delighted about, the Minister's commitment to find top-quality people to be the ODA chairman and chief executive. I hope that they will have an equally high-quality project director. We hope that the project runs to time and on cost. That hope is universal and I do not think that anyone wishes to see what sadly happened in Greece and in previous Olympics. I do not have to repeat what has happened with cost overruns in previous Olympics—people may think that I am dodging the issue, but Members of the Committee will be bored by  their knowledge of it. We are all conscious that past Olympic games have overrun their budget. 
We all know how the finances of the London Olympics will be structured. The one element of the finances that is open-ended is the council tax payers' commitment. The Minister says that London council tax payers in band D will pay £20 a year, which, I assume, is without a revaluation of council taxes. We hope that it will be just £20 a year, although many of my constituents already find the burden of an extra £20 a year, on top of the high council tax that they have to pay because of the transfer of funds further north, difficult to bear . 
The Mayor himself, I understand, said this week to London borough leaders that council tax had reached its maximum in London; that is before he puts 20 quid on everybody's annual bill. However, we do not have what the council tax payers of London desperately need, which is reassurance that should the costs of the games overrun, by some great misfortune, they will not be left to pick up the bill ad infinitum. If the Minister can seriously reassure us, that will allay our concern. We will then work closely with our constituents in London to reassure them that the Mayor will not continue well into the future to use the precept under another guise. We want a physical cap on the council tax that he can levy in case there is an overrun or the Bill give him the opportunity to continue to demand money from council tax payers—allegedly for the Olympics, but in fact using Olympics mechanisms to continue to raise money for his own adventures. 
I do not want to hold the Committee up too long. I simply want to reiterate that the key point is to ensure that London council tax payers are wholeheartedly on board for the Olympics. I would be most grateful if the Minister could reassure us on the two points that I have raised and explain how London council tax payers will not be committed until the bitter end of their lives if there is an overrun.

Jo Swinson: We have a lot of sympathy with some of the concerns outlined by the hon. Lady. Obviously, we all hope that the point will ultimately be irrelevant because the games will be delivered on time and to budget. Indeed, given that the robust financial planning that formed part of the initial bid was one of the things that so impressed the judges, we have great hopes that that will be the case. However, it is always worth planning for every eventuality, and the amendment lays down the good principle that the Government should bear the brunt of any cost overrun.
We have already had assurances on that from the Prime Minister, who insisted that the Government must stand behind the bid. In a parliamentary answer, the Secretary of State said that 
''the Government will act as the ultimate guarantor of Olympic funding should there be a shortfall between the LOCOG's (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) costs and revenues''.—[Official Report, 20 July 2005; Vol.436, c. 1764 W.]
Lord Coe said that the operating costs were being met through IOC-generated sponsorship. He also said: 
''Not a penny of this budget will be drawn from the public purse.''
We have had those assurances, but I understand that there are still concerns, so it is important that the Government live up to what they said. They must make it clear that, in acting as the guarantor, they will ensure that any cost overrun does not fall just on council tax payers in London.

Hugh Robertson: Let me add a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who laid out the case for the amendment very clearly.
In introducing my remarks this morning, I said that one of my party's key concerns was that the games were delivered on time and to budget and that the London council tax payer would not have to pick up a large bill afterwards. At the moment, the balance is about right. It is perfectly reasonable that those who live in London, which is the host city, should pay a little extra council tax. The amount to be raised is £625 million—if my memory serves me right, it is £550 million plus an extra £75 million—and that is perfectly fair. 
As my hon. Friend said, however, the Sydney games overran their budget by two times the original amount, and the Athens games, for security reasons, overran by five times. Given the momentum that built up behind the bid and which is now building up behind the games, we would like some recognition of the fact that they are a national event and the burden will not be borne only by Londoners. They will be the biggest event in this country for a couple of decades, and I want to ensure that, although London council tax payers should pay a reasonable amount, they do not have an open-ended commitment beyond that. 
I support my hon. Friend in moving the amendment and I hope that the Minister will give us the necessary assurances.

Richard Caborn: As the Mayor of London has recognised, and as the Committee must recognise, hosting the 2012 games will bring huge benefits to London, so Londoners should, as has been said, bear a fair proportion of the costs. Indeed, that is what we have done before. When my own city of Sheffield hosted the world student games in the early 1990s and Manchester hosted the Commonwealth games, the same formula was applied because some of the benefits would accrue to those places.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government and the Mayor agreed a memorandum of understanding on Olympic funding, which provided details of the public sector funding package of £2.375 billion. The Mayor has agreed to provide £625 million for the funding package from council tax. A further £1.5 billion will come from the national lottery, and the remaining £250 million will come from the London Development Agency. The memorandum also sets out the arrangements to be followed for further public subsidy should that be necessary, which would be through a sharing arrangement, agreed as appropriate with the Mayor, seeking additional national lottery funding. 
Throughout the preparation of the bid, the Government and the Greater London Authority have successfully worked closely in partnership, and we will continue to do so to deliver a truly memorable games. Hon. Members may get bored with hearing this, but we learned a lot from cities that had recently hosted the Olympic games. One piece of advice we received was to ensure that we had robust financing. The Sydney organisers said that if they had their time again, they would put much more robust financial structures in place, because when organisers have to ask for more funding—we saw this with the Commonwealth games in Manchester—it is seen as a failure. When the staff get into that position, people look more at how to save money and deal with budgets than at how best to deliver the games, which is an inefficient and ineffective way of dealing with the project. We were mindful of that potential problem, which is why we took a considerable amount of advice on how to stick to the budget. Of the chapters that were closed on the candidate file, this one probably got the greatest drilling from the IOC evaluation panel. The financial structure has been put under tremendous scrutiny, especially because of the criticism about cancelling Picketts Lock, which we had to dispel, and which stuck with some IOC members for a long time. We have paid great attention to this area, and believe that, with all the reasonable bounds that we have factored in, we have a sound financial base. 
Obviously, both the Government and the Mayor intend to continue with the partnership and the prudent approach to financial management that we have adopted throughout, which was recognised by the IOC as being meticulous. In doing so, we have a shared interest in ensuring that costs are kept in check. Limiting the liability of one party in the way that the amendment suggests could jeopardise the shared interest in ensuring continued prudence. In the event of any cost overrun, the stakeholders will need to consider all the options available for meeting additional costs, and we do not want to close off any options. That is the right way to proceed. We know that we have support and it would not be wise to close off options at this stage. We want to ensure that within the structure, the programme committee in particular will bear down heavily on any overruns on cost, which we will be able to address quickly, and time. 
We must consider previous mistakes, such as those in Athens. Security was an issue, but there was a problem with planning and compulsory purchase orders and not getting in place the facilities and legislation. In Japan, about eight of the stadiums used for the World cup were knocked down afterwards. That shows that we must be clear about legacy and our exit strategy, and that they must be factored in to the proposals. That is why it is so crucial to get the ODA structure and the structure that I presented on the management of the games right from the beginning. If we do that and get the Bill through Parliament, cost overruns are much less likely. The nearer we get to 2012, the more it will cost; we are in a buyer's market, but if we get into a seller's market, we will be in difficulties. That is clear. Getting the Bill on to the statute book and getting the ODA up and running are the main things that we can do to reassure Londoners  that we are serious and competent. As long as we get the right people on the ODA, we will keep on top of any cost overruns.

Don Foster: I thank the Government for making available in the Library a copy of the host city contract. I have not had an opportunity to read the section that I now wish I had read, but I am sure that the Minister knows it backwards. Therefore, I ask him what are the obligations of the Mayor of London within the host city contract in respect of the funding of any overruns? The Minister rightly said that the deal at the moment is that the Mayor, with the Government, will work out what to do, but what are the actual obligations of the Mayor in respect of funding overruns, if there are any obligations?

Richard Caborn: There are no obligations; there are no obligations on Government or on the lottery. We have said that we have put a financial structure in place, but this issue is not just about the financial structure; it is about how we approach the whole thing. One of the main reasons why cost overruns are created is because as the end date gets nearer, the contractor gets into the driving seatthere have been plenty of examples of that in recent years. We must start delivering on the construction project, and we must make sure that the work is done as soon as possible. We must bring discipline to bear on this matter.
We believe that we have got the right approach: we have a robust budget, and a delivery mechanism for the construction side of things, which is where cost overruns occur. If for any reason there are difficulties, we will sit down and resolve things in the spirit of the type of partnership that delivered us the games, and is now delivering this contract, and which will deliver the project itself. There is no formula or endgame in this regard.

Don Foster: I wanted the Minister to place on the record that the Mayor of London is placed under no obligation in the host city contract, and he has now made that clear. In relation to how these issues will ultimately be sorted out, we all accept what the Minister says about getting on with things now and getting them right, and that all the work that is being done should help to ensure that we will not have cost overruns; I am as confident as he is in that regard.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, one has also to prepare for contingencies, however unlikely they might be. If we now have an understanding that there is no obligation on the Mayor within the host city contract, can we be given an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State will stand by the answer she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in a parliamentary answer in July 2005? She said that 
''the Government will act as the ultimate guarantor of Olympic funding should there be a shortfall between the LOCOG's (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) costs and revenues''.—[Official Report, 20 July 2005; Vol.436, c. 1764 W.]
She is making the commitment there that the Government will act as the ultimate guarantor.

Richard Caborn: We are. It is not possible for a city to be chosen from the Olympic candidate file unless the  Government are the lender of last resort. We have to stand behind the project, but it would be a mistake to try to translate that into us giving an answer on what we would do if we had a budget overrun. We would not have got the Olympic games if the Government had not stood behind the bid. Therefore, we are the lender of last resort; that is acknowledged. How we would resolve any budget overruns is a totally different issue.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly that the Government are not the final body to pick up the tab on any budget overruns, because that is the concern of the London council tax payer. It is important to be clear about the Mayor being jointly responsible with the Government for any budget overrunsand I entirely accept what the Minister says about the work that went into costing the bid, the planning of it, and the determination to get the project going.
However, as this is going to be an international operation, I would just point out that New Orleans is currently picking up all the construction work going and Pakistan will be doing exactly the same, and that China is probably employing almost every other person involved in construction. It is not difficult to see from the very beginning where the budget overruns might start, because costs will go up as there is a high demand for serious, big, technical and technological infrastructure projects. 
Regardless of how robust the budgeting and the project analysis has been, I fear that natural disasters will potentially have an impact on the budgeting. I come back again to the issue of the Mayor sharing in any budgetary overrun, quite apart from the fact of the lottery not raising the £625 million. That is no slur on the lottery's ability to raise money; it is a superb organisation, and I have not joined in on the criticism of it in the past. It has always done very well and I have the utmost faith that it will continue to do so. 
But—there is always that big ''but''. London council tax payers have a big ''but'' in their minds. They look forward to the lottery and the infrastructure improvements because they know that, come 2013, they will benefit from them. I know that Crystal Palace in my constituency, although not part of the Olympic bid, may be well improved by 2012.

Richard Caborn: It is already being improved.

Jacqui Lait: That is debateable, but perhaps we should not go down that route right now.
London council tax payers have an issue at the back of their minds: if the Mayor has a responsibility for the overrun, the only resource that he—or it may be a she by that time, whatever the Mayor says about going on and on—will have to go back to will be the London council tax payer. If the Minister tells me that the Mayor will go to the Government, rather than the council tax payer, as a last resource, I shall be very happy, as will all Londoners. 
Where would the Mayor find the money? Will we get a clear answer—one that says that the London council tax payer will not be funding the Olympics until 2050? If Londoners knew that by 2016 they  would stop paying for the Olympics, the Minister would turn into a hero in London; at present, I fear that he is looked on with scepticism, to say the least.

Richard Caborn: Such scepticism is healthy. If any success relating to these Olympics can be measured to date, it is that of the lottery. It has already banked the first 2 million quid; it sold out of tickets well before Camelot believed it would. There was a relaunch a couple of weeks ago that has been hugely successful. There is a real appetite on the part of the lottery for supporting the Olympics nationwide. My personal view is that during these first few months, everything is looking extremely rosy on that side of things.
We should not remove the disciplines. There are disciplines on the Mayor's office, which is working in partnership to deliver. We are not going to take that responsibility away from it; nor would it take away from the Government our responsibility to ensure that we deliver. Within that discipline, we shall deliver on time and on budget. If things are not on budget, we shall sit down and find a resolution, as we have on every bit of this project to date. 
The Mayor may or may not go for extra resources to the council tax payer, the LDA or other areas that might be in his budget at that time. I do not know, but we are closing no options off, and believe that the discipline is there for everybody to deliver on time and on budget. In the hon. Lady's mind there may be some uncertainties for council tax payers; that, unfortunately, is something that we will have to live with. However, I hope that she will acknowledge that what we have put in place is as transparent and robust a structure for management and budgeting as at any Olympic games today.

Jacqui Lait: The Minister is very convincing, and clearly a happy chap. However, from time to time I have a little niggle at the back of my mind. Although I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, we may well return to this issue in future because I am not convinced that council tax payers in my constituencyor most London council tax payerswill be as happy with life as the Minister clearly is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 36, at end insert
'(5) The Authority shall pay compensation to any person whose land is injuriously affected by the execution of works by the Authority; and— 
(a) any dispute as to whether compensation is payable, or as to the amount of compensation, may be referred to the Lands Tribunal, 
(b) subsection (2) of section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56) (limitation on compensation) shall apply to this subsection as it applies to that section, and 
(c) any rule or principle applied to the construction of section 10 of that Act shall be applied to the construction of this section (subject to any necessary modifications).'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 41.

Richard Caborn: We want to make sure that anyone whose life is disrupted by the construction of Olympic venues is properly compensated. We think that the ODA, as the body responsible for construction, should be liable for compensation, rather than the LDA as the biggest land owner. We therefore propose amendment No. 36, to ensure that the ODA pays compensation. The amounts payable will be settled by the Lands Tribunal, in accordance with the case law stemming from the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and applying to England and Wales. That is the same arrangement that was made for the channel tunnel rail link project.
Amendment No. 41 applies the provision to Scotland, where subsections (b) and (c) are not required.

Jacqui Lait: When I first looked at the amendment I saw the words ''Compulsory Purchase Act'' and I thought that this was where I could start to bring in the issue of compulsory purchase. When I read it again I saw the words ''any person . . . injuriously affected''. In company law, person and company are synonymous. However, the Minister has disappointed me and I fear that I will have to raise the matter again during the clause stand part debate.
If I may, I will gently tease the Minister about his need to include a Scottish amendment. Having been the Opposition spokesman on Scotland, I am well aware that the Government regularly forget completely the fact that they have devolved these issues to Scotland. It is good to see that they remembered in good time.

Richard Caborn: Thank you for the compliment.

Jacqui Lait: I do not know that it is a compliment.
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 41, in page 3, line 36, at end insert— 
'(6) In the application of subsection (5) in respect of land in Scotland— 
(a) the reference in paragraph (a) to the Lands Tribunal is to be read as if it were a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and 
(b) paragraphs (b) and (c) are omitted.'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Amess, for allowing me to make a contribution to the clause 4 stand part debate. We have discussed council tax at great length. One of the major issues that should be covered by the clause but currently is not is the need to purchase land and buildings from businesses that exist in the area designated for the Olympics and from those on the margins of it.
I am sure everybody is familiar with the arguments. There might well be developments of which I am not aware, in which case I would be pleased to hear the Minister give us reassurances about what is happening. As I understand it, businesses that exist in the areas I mentioned and need to move are being offered only land and fitting, not the cost of rebuilding. They are being purchased at 2002 valuations but are having to spend at 2005 levels; if they wish to stay in the locality, Olympic inflation would be added to that. That part of  the east end of London—and wider—is already experiencing higher prices merely because of the Olympics. That can be healthy, but not for businesses that are trying to relocate. 
At this stage I should declare a small interest: a constituent of mine has one of the businesses affected. I have no interest in the business other than that it belongs to my constituent. I am reflecting the concerns of those businesses who are unhappy with the arrangements under the LDA, as the organisation with the power compulsorily to purchase. Under current legislation, it is not allowed to deal with businesses that need to be relocated in a manner that minimises disturbance not only to the businesses, but their finances. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me about that issue. If he cannot, my hon. Friends and I shall return to the matter because it is of serious concern. If the businesses will have to go through the current statutory process, some of the tight budgeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred so eloquently in the previous debate will go straight out of the window because of the delays caused by going through the Lands Tribunal system and so on.

Derek Wyatt: I should inform the Committee that I am a trustee of TimeBank. Before Singapore, it was charged with the volunteers' programme and, since Singapore, we have been overwhelmed with volunteers. That is encouraging, but I am not so certain what we will do with them for the next seven years. Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify how the legacy of the games will be dealt with? Across the House, we feel strongly that the games will be 21st century games and that we will leave a different legacy from the spirit of the games that we helped to create in 189495.
The hon. Member for Bath referred to facilities for disabled people. Could the legacy cover such facilities? Could design be considered? In other words, can we consider what is currently missing in the IOC agenda and lead the next two games with that? The legacy used to cover only buildings. Although Sydney held spectacular games, the owners of the Olympic stadium went broke. Let us bear in mind the appalling situation in Athens, which in the end cost 10 per cent. of GDP. It is embarrassing to admit the amount of money that has been spent. So many stadiums have had to be taken down because there was no legacy. 
I am not talking about the legacy of physical structures, because that is well taken care of in the bid document, but the legacy that we leave the Olympic movement. That is the most exciting aspect. The Institute for Policy Research and Demos have produced an excellent pamphlet about legacy entitled ''After the Gold Rush'', which I encourage hon. Members to read. 
As the Minister knows—because he chaired a meeting of it in my constituency—the South East England Development Agency will be charged with an audit of the Olympics. It will examine the structure and try to help counties and local authorities. Will it report to the ODA or to him?

Lyn Brown: The residents of my borough in which the stadium and the park will sit are tremendously excited by the games, not only because of the event itself with the enthusiasm and the energy that it will bring to the area, but because of the way in which the games will change their lives and, hopefully, the lives of their children for the better. Will the Minister consider whether the Bill properly imposes a duty that ensures a legacy of renewal and regeneration for one of the poorest parts of the country? Clause 4(3) refers to having regard
''to the desirability of maximising the benefits''.
Can that provision be made a little tougher and set out more clearly what will be done? 
Will the Minister consider making implicit under the clause the role of local government within the area that will be principally affected by the operation of the ODA? The core business of those local authorities is to ensure the social and economic benefit of those games in renewal and regeneration for the people who live there. The specific inclusion of those authorities in the Bill would strengthen the renewal and regeneration activity of those boroughs' principally affected areas, fulfilling the ambition of the bid, regenerating the east end of London and building a sustainable community.

Andy Reed: I was pleased when the Minister gave us the diagram of the Olympic staging structures this morning. It was strange to have it passed around; it looks simple, and I am delighted about that, because a danger of the clause and the way in which it is structured is that we could end up with a mishmash of things, all over the place.
As to how the ODA and LOCOG will work, my question to the Minister is about the structure below, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has already mentioned. I declare an interest, as I chair my county sports partnership. We had a presentation from Sport England a week ago on the potential structure that will allow people from the east midlands and other regions that are represented here to contribute. 
The day after 6 July every local authority or councillor or other individual with a relevant contact somewhere in the world was trying to get preparation camps based in their location. The hon. Member for Bath and I are fortunate because our constituencies have a suitable existing infrastructure.

Richard Caborn: I should have been surprised if my hon. Friend had not mentioned that.

Andy Reed: I have managed to mention Bath in the same breath as Loughborough again, but I forgot that I must always mention Sheffield too, if I want a decent reply from the Minister.
It is important that co-operative working is improving relations, and work is already being done. There is the potential for a great scramble among other places that have a contact or a twin city. A structured approach is needed. I know that that structure is being established, but the one that I saw was so complicated that it is difficult to understand how people will feed into it, and how it will be co- ordinated so that those concerned do not spend the next seven years going to meetings to make sure that they are in the partnership that is discussing something. 
The diagram we have been shown is simple and understandable, and despite some of this morning's exchanges we are pretty well covered as to consultation and representation. My plea is that the Minister will assure us that the next tier down will be kept to a minimum, to allow the Olympics to be staged in 2012. The way things look now, we will be holding them in 2212, not 2012.

Don Foster: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is sayingnot just about the brilliance of Loughborough, Bath and Sheffield, but about the importance of a simple lower structure so that people know who can be expected to present them with a structure in which they can get involved. Does he agree that perhaps to date the role of the nations and regions support group has not been given quite the profile that some of us might like? I know that a huge amount of work is being done under the chairmanship of Charles Allen, but more publicity could perhaps be given to that work, so that people know whom to contact for official advice on how to get involved, whether that will be the local authority, sports partnerships or regional development agencies.

Andy Reed: That is a perfect point. That is the one thing that I wanted to emerge from the meeting that we hadsomething to be circulated in the county so that the local authorities would know about the excellent work that is being done. They did not know about that. For a while what happened was ''rapid, then stop''getting excited about things but not doing anything further. Perhaps today's proceedings are an opportunity to raise the profile of what is happening. We need to unify and send out the clear message that people can get excited about the Olympics now, but should wait until the relevant structure is in place when there will be one port of call for inquiries.
This is an exciting time, and we are not trying to diminish people's excitement. I know that the work to establish the relevant structure is being done as quickly as possible; when that happens, good publicity can tell people where to get all the answers.

Meg Hillier: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Amess. I represent a constituency with probably the most sporting activity on a Sunday morning anywhere in London, with Sunday league football on Hackney marshes. I want to raise some land-use issues, one of which concerns the car park. Even as far off as Loughborough people know about the car park on East Marsh, and it is a genuine concern. I believe, as do many people locally, that it is a short-term loss for a long-term benefit, butwith full acknowledgement of all the biodiversity issuesI am on record as saying that East Marsh should be returned to football use, so that people in Hackney actually gain from the loss of  it, rather than lose long-term. I repeat that today, and urge the Minister to consider whether it is appropriate to address the matter in the Bill; if not, perhaps he can reassure me in other ways.
There is also an issue with Waterden road, where there is a Travellers' site. I continue to work with local agencies, including the local authority, on that. It is interesting that Travellers do not seem to fit into any of the categories in the Bill about land use. I wanted to alert the Minister to that issue, because it is people's homes that we are talking about. On the Hackney side, those are certainly the residents most affected in the area. 
To pick up on subsection (3), there is a legacy for local facilities, but we want to make sure that they really are local and can be maintained locally by the local authority without extra cost to Hackney residents. However, there is also a human legacy that we need to bear in mind. It has not been talked about and is not really reflected in the Bill as it stands. 
In Hackney, the lay of the land is that there will be a big divide between the place where the Olympic park will be and the rest of Hackney. A lot of people are genuinely concerned—as am I, the local Member of Parliament—that people will not have the skills necessary to take on the jobs that arise as a result of the Olympics. It would be a great shame if at the end of the Olympics Hackney is still one of London's poorest boroughs; I think that I vie with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) for position at the top of that unfortunate league table. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can reassure me that, through his discussions with the Olympic delivery authority, the London Development Agency and the other various agencies, and through the Secretary of State's role on the board, we can make sure that the human legacy is maintained, and that local people benefit from jobs and skills as a result of the Olympics.

John Robertson: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess; this is the first time that I have contributed, so I felt that I should say that.
It is important that someone from the Celtic regions makes a contribution. There are plenty of us on the Committee, although only two of us have constituencies north of the border. A sad aspect of our proceedings is that the only people here today are those from the three main parties; it might have been of more benefit to us all if there had been others from some of the smaller parties, but then again some of us are used to the Scottish nationalists not turning up—once again they have not let me down. 
I, too, want to talk about the legacy, because although we are talking about the London Olympics, it is the nation that will be taking part. We in Scotland, which is probably the part of the UK furthest from where the Olympics will take place, have a great affection for what is happening down here, because we would love to have the games ourselves. However, we appreciate that a nation of about 5 million people is unlikely to be able to hold games of the size of the Olympics. Nevertheless, we have our hopes, and I trust  that Glasgow's bid to hold the 2014 Commonwealth games will be supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister. I know that he is fully behind the British bid for those games. I hope that there will be a legacy not just to support what will happen in London in 2012 but to echo what happened in Manchester, which held excellent Commonwealth games. I hope—no, I am sure—that we will do better in future. 
It is important that the legacy that we put in place now, not just during the Olympics, has a knock-on effect across the whole United Kingdom. The training of our sportsmen and women, and the facilities and coaching that go with that training need to be put in place and funded. We want to ensure that the British athletes, swimmers and gymnasts, and everyone who takes part, are the best, so that Britain is on the map once again. I have no doubt that London will do an excellent job of welcoming the world, but we want the United Kingdom to do its bit by welcoming the tourists. 
I also make a plea for Glasgow, and for the rest of Scotland. We are a part of the United Kingdom; those from other parts of the world will want to become acclimatised to the British weather. I can guarantee that people will acclimatise to every bit of the weather—probably in one day. They will see plenty of rain and sunshine, they may see snow and hail, and they will wonder why they came in the middle of summer. 
It is important that we do our bit to ensure that the London games are a success. However, I represent a Glasgow seat and I would like the Minister to guarantee that the home of Scottish football will not be forgotten wherever football is being played in the United Kingdom. We in Scotland have paid our taxes to ensure that we are part of the London 2012 Olympic games; but, for us, it is important not only to do our bit in supporting it financially but to be make room for the people who come to this country.

Richard Caborn: I start by answering the hon. Member for Beckenham on land acquisition. The provisions enable the ODA, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to pay the same for the land as it would have paid in compensation if it had acquired the land under CPO powers. It is intended to help those whose land is being bought; it will enable it to pay more, not less, than it could have obtained on the open market. As well as paying the open market value for the land, the ODA will be able to make supplementary loss payments, based on approximately 7.5 per cent. of the valuation of the property, as well as covering costs incurred by the vendor in relocation. If the ODA purchases without using CPO powerson a non-statutory basiswe cannot stipulate what it should offer. That is a matter for negotiation between the parties.

Jacqui Lait: Does the first option of compulsory purchase cover the cost of rebuilding or only the land and the fittings?

Richard Caborn: I am not going to take a stab at that; I have a view, but I do not want to put it on record. Even my officials looked a little dumbfounded when  they heard the question, so I shall reply to the Committee in writing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey spoke of the legacy of the games. First, the games is not simply a great sports festival lasting for four or five weeks; it is a major sporting project that will deliver a number of agendas. On the human agenda, through the good efforts of my hon. Friend and others, there will be something like 70,000 volunteers. I look back to Manchester, and some of the fantastic stories of the volunteers from those games. Indeed, it was the volunteers who made Manchester so special. Those who watched the Commonwealth games—it was watched internationally—saw them selling their city and their region with pride and passion. 
I heard some great human stories about Manchester. Young unemployed people joined the volunteer programme, and others joined for all sort of reasons. That discipline, work and experience allowed them to find employment, and they are still employed. A whole series of things could result. I remember walking into the volunteers' room at Manchester and meeting three middle-aged couples. They were all retired professional people who had been working voluntarily seven days a week. It was near the end of the games, and they told me that, for the previous 18 months, they had put a tremendous amount into the games and did not know what they would do with their lives afterwards. There are many human stories like that. The games enriched not only those people's lives, but their city and their region. We have to capture and manage that feeling and make sure that it expresses itself in our communities in the form of volunteering. However, we have not been very good at doing so. When I went into the volunteers' room, I saw that it was not about money for them; all they wanted was a thank you. We occasionally forget that saying ''Thank you very much for your contribution'' would go a long way. The volunteering programme offers great opportunities. 
There are other great opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham spoke about what was in this for the locality; if the games do not lift the skills base in the east end of London, we will have failed. That is one of the benchmarks that we have to use. We shall insist that the ODA looks at the skills base because it is very important. We have already started trying to involve the skills sector, but as the learning and skills councils know very well, it is not easy to train people up. The games might seem a long way away now, with six or seven years to go, but it is difficult to upskill a lot of people in that time. None the less, there is a great opportunity to bring people in, including those from the Bangladeshi community, which is one of the least skilled. It is a matter of how we manage that. The ODA will have a major responsibility, and one measurement of its success or failure will be whether it upskills that part of the east end of London. 
Let me deal now with the nations and regions. Credit is due to everyone involved, including those in Scotland. When we went to make the final bid, we wanted 1 million people to have signed up to it, but  something like 3 million had done so. We went round doing the opinion polls and the focus groups, and some of the strongest support for the bid was in Scotland. It was well above 80 per cent., which was quite remarkable. Right across the nation, the percentage of people supporting the bid was into the eighties. That came about in part because of the nations and regions support group, under the able chairmanship of Charles Allen. It allowed that support to manifest itself in a way that had an effect in our winning the bid on 6 July—we should make no mistake about that. 
We want to transform that work now, and I am working with Charles Allen on responsibility for the nations and regions. I shall not go into that now, but we will be having a co-ordinator for each region. The issues involved include tourism, the supply chain, holding camps and the cultural festival, all of which will ensure that this is truly a British project, not a London one. There will clearly be a concentration of benefits in London, and that is right, if that is where events are held, but there are great opportunities to make sure that we spread the benefits, and the ODA will have responsibility for that. 
Another legacy will come out of this. We have all been talking about stadiums and sports facilities in this country and worldwide. However, if we look at major sporting events such as the World cup, the Commonwealth games—I think we were successful in that case—and the Olympics, we see that there has not been a good legacy of using buildings and facilities afterwards. Indeed, the record is not good in sport per se. The great challenge that we face is how to use stadiums and sports facilities in a multipurpose way. How do we make them transportable and adaptable? 
We transformed the athletics stadium in Manchester into a football stadium. That had to be planned at the design stage, because we could not have done it as an afterthought. Immediately after the Commonwealth games in Manchester were on Five Live, we were digging up the track on which Paula Radcliffe won her fantastic victory and sticking a football team called Manchester City on it. I know that there are one or two Manchester City fans here, and the club now has a ground. That project has played a major role in the regeneration of the east end of Manchester. 
Just think about the national stadium that we are going to build now. It is going to be an 80,000-seater to start with. The design brief that is going out is to bring it down to a 20,000-seater so that it can be a great athletics stadium. It will then move back to being a 40,000-seater so that it can host a Commonwealth games or an event staged by the International Association of Athletics Federations. That is possible. What with the design skill, architects and materials now available, I think that by 2012 we can make great advances. 
Let us think about 50 m pools; we believe that some of those can be transported around the country. Let us  think about the arenas; we believe that they can be designed to be not only multipurpose, but transportable. These are the challenges that we will give to the civil engineers, architects, designers and materials providers. That is why it is so important that we deal with this Bill as quickly as possible, and get the best people in the world on to the ODA, driving the project team. In the medium term, what we are doing could make the Olympics affordable for developing countries. At the moment there is a real fear, which Jacques Rogge and I share, that they are only for the rich countries. If the Olympics ever become that, we will be failing the Olympic ideal. That is why I genuinely and passionately believe that we have a contribution to make to sport in the widest context, and that we must drive sport to deliver on a whole series of agendas connected with the Olympic bid.

Patrick McFadden: Will the Minister elaborate on something? He talked about the design of facilities and he mentioned 50 m pools that may be distributed around the country. I am sure that a lot of Members would be interested in access to such facilities. Will he tell us how those 50 m pools will be distributed around the country? How would any nations or regions interested in such facilities make their views known?

Richard Caborn: Deliverability is the concept. We will now work on that through the ODA. That is the challenge. Where the prize goes is up to those in nations and regions as matters unfold.
To digress a little, I can tell the Committee that we now have the Active Places database, delivered by Sport England. For the first time, we can now say with certainty where sports facilities are in this country. When I came into this job over four years ago, I asked the simple question, ''Where are all the sports facilities in this nation? Can someone put that down for me?'' but no one could say, either for the public or private sector. We now can, through Active Places. It is quite extensive and is online now. I am pleased and proud of what we have done. Through that database, we will look at where there is any overheating and inequality. That could well guide us as to where we should put facilities in future. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's area will be on that list as a place where there is under-utilisation, but we will see what happens in future. 
I come back to the ODA and what its outlook must be. Many aspects of it are very important. It could really drive the agenda for change, and it could be good for UK Ltd., too. We must put in this window the many and varied things we have to offer the world. That will link into the regions, too. The structure that we put in place to win the chance to hold the games should now be dedicated to delivering them. Supply chains are also important, and the regions have a role to play in that. If we miss this opportunity, it will be our own fault. 
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham asked about the role of local government and local authorities. They are locked into the system—there is no doubt about that—both here in London and, I hope, out there through the nations and regions committee. That committee will feed into the  decision-making mechanism and the whole Olympic development plan; it has done so to date. Again, the authorities in London have been absolutely superb. We have not had to use any of the powers that we may have to take under this Bill. They have the planning outline and have acted in the most responsible way. One member of the evaluation team that came here saw the unity of purpose among the local authorities in delivering what was required of them. I think that that played a significant role in showing that everybody, local government in particular, was behind the bid. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) says, as usual, and rightly so, that we should keep things simple and focused, and that we should make sure that information is being passed on to the nations and regions. I assure the Committee that we will consider refining that the arrangements, as we have done in the diagram before hon. Members. We will make sure that the decision-making chain is kept as short as possible. 
I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) about the specific matters she raises as I do not have the answers at my fingertips. However, I can tell her that we want to ensure that one of the legacies of this project is that her constituents have better sports facilities. I am confident that that will happen.

Hugh Robertson: Tax back will do it.

Richard Caborn: Let me ask a question: what would happen if we had some surplus to pay on this budget? Let us assume that worst-case scenario. People would say, ''Well, the Government will take care of that, because they'll take the credit for everything.'' [Interruption.] Seb Coe is not coming over to my party is he? I am sorry, but I thought that the Opposition spokesman was announcing something along those lines.
We wish my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) luck, and we will continue to work with him and his colleagues on the 2014 Commonwealth games. They are very important, and I know that they take them very seriously. I met the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport of the Scottish Parliament earlier this week, and we discussed the 2014 games. 
That will also be on the agenda in a few weeks at the next sports cabinet of the devolved Administrations, chaired by the Secretary of State. We will play football for a short while at Hampden Park, so if anyone wants to see a little quality football, they can go there then. [Interruption.] Yes, I agree—that will make a change. By the way, I should point out that England were the only home team to qualify for the World cup; we finished top of our league—and it was raining in Manchester last night. 
We take the legacy of the Olympic games very seriously indeed. That will be made clear in the instructions going out to the ODA, and I think that, with a fair wind, it will deliver on that agenda. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Planning

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in clause 5, page 4, line 26, at end insert
'including the principle of working in partnership with local authorities'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 59, in clause 8, page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert
'(ja) any local authority whose area the Authority thinks is likely to be affected by the implementation of the plan,'.

Jacqui Lait: The Minister alluded in his summing up of the debate on clause 4 to the purpose behind these amendments. There is a list of organisations within the local authority structure with whom the ODA must consult, but there is no broad statement about local authorities. I include the Greater London Authority in that. It might not like being defined in that way, but I do so for the purposes of this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that the local authorities as a bodyas opposed to the local highway authority, or the others that are listedwill be consulted, along with the GLA, because, significantly, they have been left out.
The Minister has just referred to Scotland. I understand that the Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament under the Sewell motion, but I wonder whether the Scottish local authorities should also be referred to. On the other hand, perhaps the Minister is planning to throw a bone to the Scottish Parliament by allowing it to amend the Bill so that it refers to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish local authorities. 
If the Minister has a moment to think about this matter, I would be happy to hear his views. This is a probing amendment so we will not seek to divide the Committee on it.

Richard Caborn: I agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. Let us first address amendment No. 55. As the hon. Lady said, we established in the debate on clause 4 that the local authorities are central to the Olympic planning process. We must all recognise the achievement of the joint planning authority team, which has worked hard to drive forward the review of planning applications for the Olympic park. The ODA, once it is established, will appoint a planning committee, and I envisage that the Olympic park boroughs will be represented on that. That will ensure that the views of local authorities are taken into account throughout the process; partnership working is already built into the ODA's planning functions. I do not know specifically about the GLA in that context; to some extent that is up to the ODA.
I turn to amendment No. 59. It will be possible for the ODA to plan and deliver all the necessary transport requirements for the Olympic and Paralympic games only by working closely with the various interested parties. It will therefore be essential for the ODA, in preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan, to consult all those who are likely to be involved in, or affected by, the implementation of the plan. 
Clause 8(3) sets out the key organisations and people that the ODA will need to consult—including the relevant local highway, traffic and street authorities—in preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan to ensure its deliverability. There are undoubtedly others whose input will also be crucial. Obviously, it would not be possible to list in the Bill every organisation or body that the ODA should consult. Clause 8(3)(k) therefore makes provision for the ODA to consult such other persons as it thinks appropriate. 
In view of the important contributions that local authorities will have to make in planning for and delivering Olympic and Paralympic transport, I would fully expect the ODA to consult them as it prepares or revises relevant parts of the Olympic transport plan. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to that effect, although, as I say, I expect the ODA to consult all those bodies as a matter of course. It is therefore not necessary to list those bodies in the Bill. The ODA will not have planning powers in Scotland, so there is no need to extend the clause to include Scotland.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances. I shall be interested to see what the Scottish Parliament has to say about whether the ODA has any authority in Scotland.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Street lighting and cleaning

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'may arrange' and insert 'must contract'.
I bring this issue up because it would be useful to get the Minister's view on it. Like so many of the amendments, amendment No. 56 raises a question to which we wish to have a response. 
The Bill states that the ODA 
''may arrange with an authority responsible for cleaning or lighting a highway''.
We should like to explore the implications for private-sector contracts, because so much of the lighting and cleaning of highways is already contracted out and many local authorities have contracts with private organisations. I have come across one that is beginning what is potentially a 30-year contract. 
If there had to be variations in the contracts, those would have to be negotiated between the local authority and the contractor—at a greater cost to the local authorities and hence, one assumes, to council tax payers. It would be useful to know who would bear that cost. Would the council tax payers bear it, or the ODA? If the Minister cannot give an immediate response, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment and return to the issue on Report, or for him to write to Committee members about it.

Richard Caborn: Clause 6 allows the ODA to make sure that the streets around the Olympic venue are kept clean and well-lit. Such matters are the responsibility of the local authority; subsection (1) therefore allows the ODA to draw up a service level agreement with the relevant authorities. I assure the hon. Lady that we expect the ODA to take that approach whenever there is a significant issue about street cleaning or lighting. The rest of clause 6 is intended to be only a backstop, to allow the ODA to step in and carry out some work when an authority fails to do what has been formally agreed.
Amendment No. 56 would impose a further burden on the ODA by requiring it to enter a contract with all relevant local authorities. That requirement would apply even when the ODA considered that unnecessary or when it was satisfied that the local authority would provide a satisfactory service without any need for a side agreement or a step-in clause. The responsibility would be that of the ODA.

Jacqui Lait: I just wish to finish the Minister's sentence. Will it be the responsibility of the ODA to pay?

Richard Caborn: Yes.

Jacqui Lait: That is reassuring. We shall consider the provision. If we have further queries, I am sure that the Minister will be only too willing to help us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Olympic Transport Plan

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert
'(ja) Network Rail, 
(jb) Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) or its successor, 
(jc) utility companies the Authority thinks are likely to be affected by the plan,'. 
We discussed earlier whether it was reasonable for the Government to bring forward a list of bodies. They do not usually do so, but they have done under the Bill, although not all the bodies that we might reasonably expect to be included are included. For example, despite the importance of the transport plan, no reference is made to the railways; there is no reference to Network Rail. We debated earlier the importance of keeping the environment around the Olympic sites up to the standards to which we are committed. We rightly discussed the need to consult local authorities, but let us face it: many of the issues that can get in the way will be the result of the utility companies. As we know from our constituencies, roads could suddenly be dug up. Although new legislation is now in place to control what utility companies are doing, it strikes me as crucial that utility companies are brought into the ambit of the consultation process. 
It is odd that, on the one hand, the Bill refers to the Office of Rail Regulation, but not to Network Rail, while on the other hand reference is made to local authorities, but not to utility companies. It is important that reference is made to Cross London Rail Link or its successor. CLRL is the organisation that is seeking to deliver the Crossrail project. Measures are before the House on that precise matter. If the Bill is passed, and if the work on Crossrail begins as is predicted, that could have a huge impact on the transport arrangements in London. Therefore, it is critical that the organisation is included on the list. 
The Minister will say that subsection (3)(k) sets out all that I need to know. Given that it states that anyone else that the Secretary of State wants to consult can be consulted, he will say that there is no problem. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot suddenly outline in the Bill a long list of bodies and then say that it does not matter which organisations have or have not been included on the list. There must be some justification for their inclusion. I presume that those bodies on the list are high-priority organisations, while the others that are not on the list are not. If the clause is concerned with high priority organisations, I suggest that the three bodies to which I referred are clearly high priority. They have been left off the list. The Minister has made a mistake. I urge him to come clean, admit it and tell us what he will do about it.

Richard Caborn: I have heard some rubbish in my time, but what the hon. Gentleman has just said takes the biscuit. Here we are, yet again, trying to work in partnership to deliver the Bill. We are trying to be helpful, and all he can do is criticise. I will instruct my officials in future to give minimum advice and help to hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman. He is unduly critical. He is absolutely right about the answer that I am going to give him: the ODA is allowed to consult anybody that it wants to. We are trying to be helpful, illustrating who we believe to be the important bodies to consult. That does not debar anyone who wants to be consulted.
I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman is unduly critical of my officials, who are trying to be extremely helpful. They are good officials and want to try to help to inform the Committee throughout the drafting of the Bill and to make sure that it works efficiently and effectively for our nation, and all we get from the Liberal party is criticism. I hope that he will reflect on what he has said and withdraw the amendment. I assure him that the ODA can consult whom it wants to. In future, we will have to think carefully about who we say that it has to consult so that we do not allow such stupidity of debate to take place in Committee.

Don Foster: I would be interested if the Minister would be prepared to make public the briefing notes from which he delivered that speech. I suspect that what his officials gave him might have been rather different from what he delivered. Never mind, he delivered what he did.
I say to the Minister in the gentlest way possible that I think that it is slightly beneath him to accuse me of being critical of his officials. I was not critical of his  officials; I was critical of the Minister for getting it wrong. His officials have done a fantastic job and I have a good working relationship with them. I hope that he will not carry out his threat in any way to undermine the good working relationship that I and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent have with his officials. 
His answer was frankly a load of old baloney. It was a pathetic attempt to get out of a statement that has been made and I suspect that had I tabled an amendment to insert '',for example,'' after 
''Before preparing or revising the plan the Authority shall consult'',
the Minister would not have accepted that either, although that is in effect what he has told us that the clause is meant to do. 
Nevertheless, we have an assurance from the Minister that these bodies will have the opportunity to be consulted, and I am sure that they will be. It is a pity that they were not on the list, if he is going to have one. However, with the Minister's assurances and as we want to make rapid progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Olympic Route Network

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jacqui Lait: Clause 9 refers to the road network around the Olympic site. The Olympics will, of course, take place in August when commuting traffic will be reduced. I want the Minister to assure me that the people commuting from Essex through the Olympic site and towards the centre of London will have their requirements recognised and will not be penalised because that is how they have to get to work.

Richard Caborn: I would hope that that will be part of the transport plan. I cannot give absolute assurances, but I hear what the hon. Lady has to say and I am sure that it has been noted by my officials. We will convey the sentiment to those who will plan the transport. As she rightly says, the volume of traffic is down considerably in the month of August—I think by about 70 per cent.because most people are away on holiday. There will, of course, be an increase because of the Olympics but it could be quite manageable. Both Olympic and commuter traffic should be able to live side by side quite effectively.

Don Foster: The clause and that question are both important. However, there is no reference in the clauseor in the explanatory notesto when it is assumed that the Olympic route network will come out of being. Since it will have an effect on traffic elsewhere, what are the plans for the ending of the designation of the Olympic route network?

Richard Caborn: The note says ''Straight away after.'' After what, I do not know.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply.

Richard Caborn: I will determine after what later, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Co-operation

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 8, line 17, at end insert
'by order made by statutory instrument'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 61, in page 8, line 22, at end insert
'(3A) An order under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Jacqui Lait: Again, I will be brief. The Minister might well say that if we require a statutory instrument, it will slow the whole process up. I accept that, but I want to explore the proper democratic control that there will be over the Secretary of State if he thinks that a local highway authority, a local traffic authority or a street authority has failed. If the decision is entirely his, what is Parliament's right in terms of agreeing or disagreeing with him? It would also be useful if the Minister would clarify whether we are talking about the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Transport or the Deputy Prime Minister.

Richard Caborn: On the question of the Secretary of State, they all act on behalf of the Government.
It will be possible to deliver the Olympic and Paralympic games and to implement the requirements of the Olympic transport plan only with the full co-operation of all the different transport authorities responsible for the particular areas. In preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan, it will be necessary for the ODA to consult those local highways authorities, local traffic authorities and street authorities likely to be affected by the implementation of the plan. Each of those authorities will therefore have been involved in its development and will be aware of the demands it would make on them. Therefore, they can plan in advance of its implementation. 
We would intend to use only the powers of discretion in clause 10(3) where it is clear that a local highways authority, local traffic authority or street authority was refusing to co-operate and was therefore putting the plan in jeopardy. There may be instances when it will be necessary to direct an authority to implement particular parts of the plan quickly if the timetable for implementation is not to be put at risk. 
The need to seek an affirmative resolution for the powers, as suggested by the amendments, would add significantly to the time needed before a direction could be made. The consequent delay could put implementation of parts of the plan at risk. Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment. I would add that generally it would be the Secretary of State deemed appropriate that would have to deal with this matter.

Jacqui Lait: That answer rather suggests the question: how long is a piece of string? I will accept the Minister's reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Functions affecting London Olympics

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 11, at end insert
', or 
(iii) any objection sent under sub-paragraph (ii) has been withdrawn in writing, or 
(iv) the Secretary of State, having considered any objection sent under sub-paragraph (ii), has approved the exercise of the function.'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 35.

Richard Caborn: Clause 11 requires local traffic, highway and street authorities to notify the ODA when exercising a function that might affect Olympic transport. It then has 30 days to raise an objection.
The Bill, as drafted, allows the ODA to reverse the effect of actions that have been notified, but it does not allow the ODA to act where an action has been notified but consent has not yet been given, or where actions are taken in spite of ODA objections. We do not want the ODA's objections to be ignored. Amendment No. 34 therefore ensures that it will be able to act in all these situations. 
Amendment No. 35 allows for dispute resolution. It will enable the ODA to withdraw its objections or, failing that, it will allow the Secretary of State to overrule the ODA after due consideration of any objections. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 35, in page 9, line 21, leave out from 'done' to 'subsection' in line 23 and insert 'in contravention of'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Traffic regulation orders: enforcement

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out '5' and insert '1'.
In the July briefing on the Bill that the Minister kindly arranged, we discussed this clause in some detail and it became apparent that a fine of level 5 on the scale is, perhaps unsurprisingly, five times greater than a normal fine. There is a body of opinion that motoring fines are already quite steep. Anyone who has had the pleasure of a close encounter with a speed camera would probably agree, three points and £60 later. 
I understand why the Olympics will need a special transport lane, but I am not sure why that should be supported by a fine five times greater than a normal fine, which is already considered to be fairly steep. If any member of the Committee doubts that, they should think of the moment in the Olympics when they get a letter from the little old lady in their constituency who strayed into the Olympic route by mistake, probably not knowing it was there, who was caught by camera and who has now been hammered with a fine five times the normal amount. Think of the normal £60 fine and times it by five. That is an appalling prospect. We have all dealt with constituents like that, who would be exceedingly unhappy. Is not that rather heavy-handed? Is not there a more sensible approach? I accept that there must be sensible enforcement of the lanes, but I question whether a level 5 fine is not draconian.

Richard Caborn: I think that we all acknowledge that, during the operational phase of the games, it will be essential to keep the Olympic route network free for transport. Those were among the conditions that we gave to the IOC in our candidate file. In order to achieve that, the ODA will need to regulate carefully the use of the Olympic route network to ensure that traffic can flow freely, and will rely in part on ensuring that people will be deterred from obstructing or parking on the ORN. The problem is how to deter people. It will therefore be necessary to ensure that suitable deterrents and fines can be imposed when the regulations are infringed.
In considering the level of fine that should be imposed, we took into account the experience of the previous host cities Atlanta, Sydney and Athens. During the Athens games of 2004, fines for parking on critical Olympic routes were set at such a level that it was often cheaper for motorists to pay the fine than to pay for a legitimate parking space. Obviously, we want to avoid that in 2012, and must therefore ensure the level of fine for the contravention of an ODA order under clause 12(1) will be a genuine deterrent to the obstruction of the ORN. Setting the fine at level 5 is the most appropriate way of achieving that. That amount is the maximum fine, and magistrates can use their discretion according to the circumstances of the case, including those of little old women, to decide what level of fine is appropriate. I do not know of many little old women who were fined in Atlanta or Sydney.

Jacqui Lait: Does that imply that it will not be a fixed penalty notice system?

Richard Caborn: It may well be that one can opt for a fixed penalty notice. I know because I have just gone through the process. One can appeal to the magistrates court, although I understand that that may not be advantageous, but if a little old lady flips out of her house to take her dog out in the car and flips into the lane, magistrates might take those to be mitigating circumstances. With a fixed penalty notice, one has an option and can appeal, which I decided not to do over the fine when I came out of Cornwall on my holidays. I took the three points and £60 fine.

Don Foster: I expect that Committee members would be grateful if the Minister dropped us a note,  soon, about how he expects the system to operate. One difficulty not covered in the legislation is that, as he says, the figure is for the maximum fine, which would currently be £5,000. I believe that the Committee will accept the importance of keeping the Olympic route network open. Equally, however, it will also accept the importance of keeping the red route network open. We therefore need the Minister or someone to tell us how the offence of a car parked on the red route network and restricting it compares with the offence of a car that is obstructing the Olympic route network, so that we have a concept of the order of magnitude and importance of the two. That information is currently missing, and it is very difficult to have the debate without it.

Richard Caborn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I shall try to secure an explanation. It is a question of balance. We had that difficulty in Athens. We should make no mistake about that. That was a real problem, which we do not want to repeat. We shall try to find a rationale for the things that we have missed, and draw a comparison with the red route as well. I shall write to members of the Committee.

Hugh Robertson: We have had a good day, and I do not want to ruin it now. It does strike me, however, that quite a lot of this will be policed by cameras, as the Minister said. The fact is that £60 is already quite a heavy fine. To get whacked for £300, if that is the effect of the provision, is to receive a very severe caning indeed. I simply believe that it is over the top. I accept what the Minister says about Athens, but I suspect that Greek traffic fines are not quite of the magnitude of British ones.
I am very happy to leave the matter where the Minister has left it. In the nicest possible way, there was clearly confusion about exactly how the five times trigger arose and exactly what the process is. I could probably live with twice as great, but five times is a little steep. I shall happily withdraw the amendment if the Minister is prepared to clarify the rationale in writing to the Committee.

Richard Caborn: As I said, I shall write to the Committee, as the hon. Member for Bath asked me to.

Hugh Robertson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Office of Rail Regulation

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 15, page 11, line 20, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 23 and insert
'(1) 'The list of objectives in section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (objectives of Office of Rail Regulation and Secretary of State) shall be treated, in relation to the Office of Rail Regulation only, as including the objective of facilitating'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
Government amendment No. 38 
No. 1, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, at end insert— 
'( ) Where it appears to the Olympic Delivery Authority that the exercise of the duties of the Office of Rail Regulation under subsection (1) conflicts with other enactments, the Secretary of State shall be consulted.'.

Richard Caborn: We want to ensure that the Office of Rail Regulation helps to deliver a successful Olympic transport system. To that end, we have given it a new duty to facilitate the provision, management and control of Olympic transport facilities, but I do not believe that we have got the clause quite right yet. As the Bill stands, the ORR must exercise all its existing functions in a manner that supports Olympic transport. We do not want to suggest that the ORR's Olympic duty overrides any of its other duties. Our amendment would therefore make it absolutely clear that the duty to support Olympic transport is in addition to, not superior to, its other responsibilities.

Don Foster: Amendment No. 1 is a belt and braces amendment, which tacks on to the end of what the Minister has already said. He rightly pointed out that we do not want the ORR to deliver fantastic things to the Olympics and the Paralympics while screwing up all the other rail networks throughout the country, and he is right to have tabled the amendment, which we welcome. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be aware of the potential for conflict between what, for example, the ODA wants and what the ORR wants. It therefore seems sensible to have a mechanism for the resolution of those disputes. The amendment proposes that that resolution mechanism be the Secretary of State. I, for one, am surprised that I am even saying that, because I am not one for wanting to put into legislation more powers for the Secretary of State. We could not, however, think of anyone better than her to give them to, which is why we proposed that mechanism.
I shall give a real example of why such a mechanism is important. If my amendment is not the solution to the problem that I am about to describe, we must find one, or we will be in serious difficulty. The Minister will be aware that the Crossrail Bill is before the House. Clause 22 of that Bill states that it will be the ''overriding duty'' of the Office of Rail Regulation ''to facilitate the operation'' of Crossrail ''on or after'' a specified date. In other words, if work on Crossrail was going on during the build-up to, and period of, the Olympics, the ORR, regardless of its views about the importance of the Olympics, would have no choice but to put the work of Crossrail before anything to do with the Olympics. 
Yet in clause 15 of this Bill, as the Minister proposes to amend it, the ORR is required only to act 
''in a manner which will facilitate the provision, management and control''
of the London Olympics transport facilities. 
I have given an example of one conflict that could occur, but there are other, more obvious, areas of possible conflict in the delivery of the general rail transport system in the rest of the country. For example, there may be a conflict between the needs of the Olympics and those of the travelling public  commuting into London. There needs to be a form of conflict resolution; amendment No. 1 proposes one, and I hope that it will be agreed to.

Meg Hillier: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the amendment and want to highlight the north London line, which runs partly through my constituency. We expect to see improvements to the line as a result of the Olympics. We have a turn-up-and-go service, and there are negotiations with Transport for London and the Government about that. Will the ORR have responsibility for that as part of the Olympics and will it continue after the Olympics? If the Minister cannot clarify that now, perhaps he will do so later. Locally, we hope to see those improvements as ongoing and not only for the duration of the Olympics.

Richard Caborn: On that last point, I hope that the structure that we are growing is sustainable and will go way beyond 2012.
Crossrail will not open until 2013 at the earliest anyway. I hear what the hon. Member for Bath said and I will look at the matter to make sure that the situation described does not arise. It will be for the ORR to determine how to carry out its functions in such a way as to facilitate the provision, management and control of transport facilities connected with the London Olympics. In doing so, it will need to strike a balance between any duties that might come into conflict, as the Government amendments are designed to make clear. The ORR's Olympic duties do not override those other duties. 
The ORR should therefore be able to reach a reasonable balance and avoid any potential conflicts in exercising its function. Under subsection (2) the ORR will consult the ODA about the duties under subsection (1). That will enable the ODA to ensure that the ORR is aware of the requirements of the Olympics and able to reach a reasonable judgment on how to exercise its function and avoid conflict with those requirements. 
It will not be for the ODA to second-guess the ORR on whether, if it fulfils a duty in the Olympic context under subsection (1), it is likely to come into conflict with other duties. There will not be any need for the Secretary of State to be consulted as the amendment requests.

Don Foster: I may have a very small brain or be very stupid, but if the ODA decides that a decision made by the ORR is not, in its opinion, in the best interests of the delivery of the Olympic network and transport arrangements, what is it meant to do? Is it supposed just to accept it or will there be a right of appeal?

Richard Caborn: I may have to write to the hon. Gentleman on this issue. However, as I see the structure that we have in place, a serious conflict could be resolved by the Olympic board steering group, which will continue to monitor matters.
I will ask my officials to look at the drafting of the Crossrail Bill to see whether it will impact adversely on the ODA. I cannot answer that point yet. The advice  given to me is that it should not, but I will make sure of that. 
Problems will no doubt arise, but we believe that we have got the division of responsibilities and priorities right for delivery, whether we are talking about Crossrail, which is the responsibility of the ORR, or the ODA. That is what we have in the Bill at the moment, which is why I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment No. 1. I tabled Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38 to make the situation crystal clear. However, I will revisit the subject of Crossrail to see whether any issues need to be reconsidered in light of legislation going through the House. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 38, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 
'section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (as modified by subsection (1))'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Claire Ward.] 
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 18 October at half-past Ten o'clock.